Percutaneous artErial closure devices and ultrasound-guided Trans-femoRal puncture ObservatioNal InvestigatiOn: Insights from the PETRONIO registry.
access site bleeding
femoral artery
ultrasound guided puncture
vascular closure device
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2022
02 2022
Historique:
received:
22
02
2021
accepted:
05
06
2021
pubmed:
18
6
2021
medline:
8
4
2022
entrez:
17
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the safety of a single and combined use of ultrasound-guided femoral puncture (U) and percutaneous arterial closure devices (P) in femoral artery procedures (FAP) compared to fluoroscopic guidance (F) and manual compression (M) in a large radial-focused interventional centre. U and P, taken individually, have improved safety in femoral arterial access procedures compared to traditional techniques. All FAP performed between July 2017 and December 2018 in our centre were divided into three phases: (a) control period with F and M mainly performed; (b) phase out period where U and P were introduced; (c) intervention period where a 6-month expertise on the novel techniques was acquired. The overall population was further stratified into subgroups: F/M, U/M, F/P, U/P. The primary study endpoint was in-hospital access site bleeding events (BE) according to the BARC criteria. The secondary endpoint was vascular site complications (VASC). Four hundred eighteen procedures (14%) out of 3025 were performed via FA access during the study period. The overall access-site in-hospital BE were 97 (23%). Decreasing rates of BE (phase 1: n = 46, 29%; phase 2: n = 38, 22% e phase 3: n = 13, 15%; p = 0.027) and VASC were observed during the three periods. BE occurred significantly more often in F/M group (F/M: n = 48; 32%; U/M: n = 12, 16%; F/P: n = 18, 21%; U/P: n = 19, 17%; p = 0.008). F/M subgroup was an independent predictor of BE both in multivariable analysis and propensity score matching analysis. The introduction of ultrasound-guided femoral puncture and percutaneous arterial closure devices has reduced access site bleedings with a progressive improvement after the first 6 months learning period.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the safety of a single and combined use of ultrasound-guided femoral puncture (U) and percutaneous arterial closure devices (P) in femoral artery procedures (FAP) compared to fluoroscopic guidance (F) and manual compression (M) in a large radial-focused interventional centre.
BACKGROUND
U and P, taken individually, have improved safety in femoral arterial access procedures compared to traditional techniques.
METHODS
All FAP performed between July 2017 and December 2018 in our centre were divided into three phases: (a) control period with F and M mainly performed; (b) phase out period where U and P were introduced; (c) intervention period where a 6-month expertise on the novel techniques was acquired. The overall population was further stratified into subgroups: F/M, U/M, F/P, U/P. The primary study endpoint was in-hospital access site bleeding events (BE) according to the BARC criteria. The secondary endpoint was vascular site complications (VASC).
RESULTS
Four hundred eighteen procedures (14%) out of 3025 were performed via FA access during the study period. The overall access-site in-hospital BE were 97 (23%). Decreasing rates of BE (phase 1: n = 46, 29%; phase 2: n = 38, 22% e phase 3: n = 13, 15%; p = 0.027) and VASC were observed during the three periods. BE occurred significantly more often in F/M group (F/M: n = 48; 32%; U/M: n = 12, 16%; F/P: n = 18, 21%; U/P: n = 19, 17%; p = 0.008). F/M subgroup was an independent predictor of BE both in multivariable analysis and propensity score matching analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The introduction of ultrasound-guided femoral puncture and percutaneous arterial closure devices has reduced access site bleedings with a progressive improvement after the first 6 months learning period.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
795-803Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Verheugt FWA, Steinhubl SR, Hamon M, et al. Incidence, prognostic impact, and influence of antithrombotic therapy on access and nonaccess site bleeding in percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(2):191-197.
Tavris DR, Gallauresi BA, Lin B, et al. Risk of local adverse events following cardiac catheterization by hemostasis device use and gender. J Invasive Cardiol. 2004;16(9):459-464.
Ndrepepa G, Berger PB, Mehilli J, et al. Periprocedural bleeding and 1-year outcome after percutaneous coronary interventions. Appropriateness of including bleeding as a component of a quadruple end point. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(7):690-697.
Azzalini L, Tosin K, Chabot-Blanchet M, et al. The benefits conferred by radial access for cardiac catheterization are offset by a paradoxical increase in the rate of vascular access site complications with femoral access: the Campeau radial paradox. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(14):1854-1864.
Ellis SG, Bhatt D, Kapadia S, Lee D, Yen M, Whitlow PL. Correlates and outcomes of retroperitoneal hemorrhage complicating percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;67(4):541-545.
Tiroch KA, Arora N, Matheny ME, Liu C, Lee TC, Resnic FS. Risk predictors of retroperitoneal hemorrhage following percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2008;102(11):1473-1476.
Altin RS, Flicker S, Naidech HJ. Pseudoaneurysm and arteriovenous fistula after femoral artery catheterization: association with low femoral punctures. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1989;152(3):629-631.
Kim D, Orron DE, Skillman JJ, et al. Role of superficial femoral artery puncture in the development of pseudoaneurysm and arteriovenous fistula complicating percutaneous transfemoral cardiac catheterization. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn. 1992;25(2):91-97.
Seto AH, Abu-Fadel MS, Sparling JM, et al. Real-time ultrasound guidance facilitates femoral arterial access and reduces vascular complications: FAUST (femoral arterial access with ultrasound trial). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(7):751-758.
Koreny M, Riedmüller E, Nikfardjam M, Siostrzonek P, Müllner M. Arterial puncture closing devices compared with standard manual compression after cardiac catheterization: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;291(3):350-357.
Arora N, Matheny ME, Sepke C, Resnic FS. A propensity analysis of the risk of vascular complications after cardiac catheterization procedures with the use of vascular closure devices. Am Heart J. 2007;153(4):606-611.
Schulz-Schüpke S, Helde S, Gewalt S, et al. Comparison of vascular closure devices vs manual compression after femoral artery puncture the ISAR-CLOSURE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312(19):1981-1987.
Honda Y, Araki M, Yamawaki M, et al. The novel echo-guided ProGlide technique during percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Interv Cardiol. 2018;31(2):216-222.
Fujihara M, Haramitsu Y, Ohshimo K, et al. Appropriate hemostasis by routine use of ultrasound echo-guided transfemoral access and vascular closure devices after lower extremity percutaneous revascularization. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2017;32(3):233-240.
Yunos NRAM, Bellomo R, Hegarty FC, Story D, Ho L, Bailey M. Association between a chloride-liberal vs chloride-restrictive intravenous fluid administration strategy and kidney injury in critically ill adults. JAMA. 2012;308(15):1566-1572.
Mehran R, Rao SV, Bhatt DL, et al. Standardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the bleeding academic research consortium. Circulation. 2011;123(23):2736-2747.
Doyle BJ, Ting HH, Bell MR, et al. Major femoral bleeding complications after percutaneous coronary intervention. Incidence, predictors, and impact on long-term survival among 17,901 patients treated at the Mayo Clinic from 1994 to 2005. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1(2):202-209.
Benedetto U, Head SJ, Angelini GD, Blackstone EH. Statistical primer: propensity score matching and its alternatives. Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2018;53:1112-1117.
Azzalini L, Jolicœur EM. The wise radialist's guide to optimal transfemoral access: selection, performance, and troubleshooting. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;89(3):399-407.
Berti S, Bedogni F, Giordano A, et al. Efficacy and safety of ProGlide versus Prostar XL vascular closure devices in Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the RISPEVA registry. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9(21):e018042.
Lincoff AM, Kleiman NS, Kereiakes DJ, et al. Long-term efficacy of bivalirudin and provisional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade vs heparin and planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade during percutaneous coronary revascularization: REPLACE-2 randomized trial. JAMA. 2004;292(6):696-703.
Stone GW, McLaurin BT, Cox DA, et al. Bivalirudin for patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(21):2203-2216.
Stone GW, Witzenbichler B, Guagliumi G, et al. Bivalirudin during primary PCI in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(21):2218-2230.